Oh, you mean the Global warmist scientific alarmist community is going to discredit those who would expose their hyperbolic exaggerations for that which it is ??..what a shock !!! Again…that which you fear will limit your growth…read the foreward…
Where did you cut and paste that from? Sorry but completely false. As for education. You do need the education. You can’t understand the complex math. My daughter did a lot of research with one of her college professors at MIT. I couldn’t understand half the math even though I have a MS in applied mathematics.
Crichton has not published one peer reviewed paper, nor has he done any research. To quote him as an expert is a joke.
If you choose to value his opinions over that of the great majority of scientists, okey-dokey.
1 Like
Thanks Bugmenot. I found similar references once you pointed out those details. It’s definitely not statewide nor is it a law in of itself. It’s buried in the SIP as a means to address non-conformity in the ozone limits of the clean air act. It only applies to the most populous counties in the SE part of the state. Interestingly, there is evidence that the measured pollution responsible for this activity may actually be drifting there from elsewhere (Boston?). I wonder how many places fail the EPA testing through no fault of their own but instead have “bad” neighbors…
So…looks like you don’t want any information that does not fit your narratives…opinions are only OK if they square with yours…marginalize all who disagree…and when confronted with a valid coherent opposing view you simply put your hands over your ears close your eyes and proceed with lalalala lalalala lalalala. How boring…
Still waiting for any ‘valid coherent opposing view’. I monitor the data (not opinions) closely. It’s very clear.
Show us reviewed scientific evidence from a respected scientist. You’re the one who’s IGNORING scientific evidence and clasping onto anything that meets your views.
The proper way to write the plural of “symposium” would be “symposia.” It’s a Latin word, like “medium” and “media.”
Since it’s obvious nobody has any interest in talking about the original subject of this thread, someone please stick a fork in it. It’s done.
I thought this forum had rules.
2 Likes
Thank you @Whitey !.. Let your elected officials know your feelings about this upcoming vote. I think there is more than enough ethanol in our fuel and do not want any more put in until the technology for both producing it and using it in our cars has improved a lot. Ethanol fuel is still in the early adopter stage in the US. Brazil is very successful, but they are using sugar cane to produce ethanol.
Since ethanol fuel is so widely used in Brazil they can design their engines to work with ethanol and not gasoline. Higher compression ratios for higher octane fuel makes the engines more efficient.
1 Like
Are there currently any laws limiting ethanol content in fuel right now? If so is it 10%? Does this ever get checked?
I have been buying 90 octane ethanol free “recreational” fuel for my two Mantis Tillers, My ATV, and other gas powered devices that do not get used much.
The Ethanol free fuel available here is expensive, about 1.00 to 1.25 higher than regular 87. This fuel is stored in an above ground tank next to the racing fuel.
There is another gas station that is a 40 minute drive from me that has ethanol free 91 octane at the regular pumps. It is not priced any higher than other premium fuels. I have occasionally run this in my vehicles but I don’t have a reason to go there often.
If elected Donald Trump will build a wall around the icebergs to keep the global warming from melting them, and he will make the global warming pay for the wall.
If Hillary Clinton is elected she will delete any emails that pertain to global warming therefore it will no longer exist.
Geeze… We will be fine either way folks. its OK. Really.
1 Like
And the answer to the question is who knows? Anybody who thinks they do know is probably mistaken. I’m not a scientist and don’t pretend to be but I do know a little about special interest groups. Seems to me the earth is 4.5 billion years old and our ice core samples are less than a million years old. So right there the sample is a little small. Plus then when computing averages you have to look at the number and location of the monitoring devices and are the temps influenced by the new construction around them and how accurate the ones used a hundred years ago were? Then the software programming itself to come up with the desired projections? Just seems like a lot of unknowns to throw ourselves in a tizzy over. Should we be good stewards of the land? Yes. But should we eliminate air conditioning, manufacturing, and cows in a futile attempt to reduce average temps by two degrees, while sending millions to the folks that came up with the idea? Doesn’t sound very useful to me. Am I a little disappointed that our government’s top concern is climate change and not global chaos and protection of our system of government and our society? YES,
When we eliminate all cars and roads and farm equipment and modern conveniences and humans, we’ll finally be safe.
We really miss you already 
Please come back again real soon 
1 Like
Yes I posted a response, sure it must have been under the you are ignoring facts banner, repeat,
Gary whatever: “Yes, facts tend to mess up liberal narratives that are usually incoherent.”
ME: When one person makes an accusation, check to be sure he himself is not the guilty one. Sometimes it is those whose case is weak who make the most clamour. Piers Anthony
As far as back as the George W. Bush administration, the Defense Department was warning that global warming posed a threat to U.S. national security, and that the military needed to be preparing accordingly.
the House passed an amendment prohibiting the department from spending money to put its new plan into effect.
Wisconsin Agency Bans Talk of Climate Change
State treasurer convinces commissioners to pass the
In Florida, officials ban term ‘climate change’
. Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early 1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet Exxon funded organizations that helped manufacture doubt about the causes of climate change for decades afterward
Legislate away the verbage and the potential problem does not exist. Right?
@Garyfran60 Will heart @db4690
CQ Exxon Makes it car related.
1 Like
Actually no. The sample rate is fairly high. But that’s not the main issue. Many scientists agree that prediction is difficult, but the evidence that there is global warming NOW is extremely strong. But if you completely disregard global warming and just look at the overall pollution you can easily see that automobiles are not environmentally friendly. If you even think that there’s a 1% chance that global warming is happening then it’s morally reprehensible not to take action.
If only the two parties could have a for real show down. Cordell Walker vs Billy Jack… And then one tin soldier will ride away, settling the argument.
On second thought, maybe Dirty Harry vs Billy Jack.
Like I implied, I think the real issue comes out finally that some folks just don’t like cars or roads or factories and climate is an excuse to further their cause.
“automobiles are not environmentally friendly . . .Its morally reprehensible not to take action.” I rest my case.
We…? Apparently the echo chamber of like minded leftist clones in which
you reside have let you down…not my problem…